tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post7425051798147022254..comments2016-12-10T03:29:06.834+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Dog domestication in the Aurignacian (c. 32kyBP)Dienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-89031795766437075522008-10-23T01:15:00.000+03:002008-10-23T01:15:00.000+03:00Well, with dogs it's not one, but many, against so...Well, with dogs it's not one, but many, against solitary cats. And no predator invites certain injury just to get to some inconvenient food.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, it's the <I>alarm system</I> aspect that was probably most important, and perhaps the dogs ability to trace down human or animal invaders. The dogs early nervousness and barking would have given people more time to wake up and/or prepare for battle.<BR/><BR/>Neanderthalers never threw things. They hunted with heavy spears that were thrust. I can't imagine a poorer weapon against a bunch of agile dogs.eurologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-21523793019459866162008-10-22T10:58:00.000+03:002008-10-22T10:58:00.000+03:00Not sure how a dog can fend off against a Sabertoo...Not sure how a dog can fend off against a Sabertooth cat or the Leo Europaea( although competition with feral dogs is supposedly a factor in the latter's final extinction a few thousand years ago). Neanderthal's were supposed to be good hunters and good weapon craftsmen. So I dont think a dog would've made much a threat to them, it might be possible they domesticated them even for that matter.Crimson Guardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08259882884691575025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-59835247639240148302008-10-20T12:34:00.000+03:002008-10-20T12:34:00.000+03:00I am sure these guyshttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/...I am sure these guys<BR/><BR/>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/298/5598/1610.pdf<BR/><BR/>would like a second chance of writing their paper. Apart from a severe lack of caution in the quantitative analysis, that paper seems like a prime example of "insufficient genetic information and interpretation meets current (yet wrong) archaeological evidence." I'd say, if in doubt, consider things happened <I>earlier</I>.<BR/><BR/>Considering the evidence, I venture that domestication happened after modern humans and a smallish subspecies of mid-latitude western Asian wolves developed tentative symbiosis during the ~20,000 years humans were in limbo before conditions and culture/equipment where right, ~45,000 to 40,000 years ago, to conquer both Northern Asia and Europe.eurologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-8684087386529383142008-10-19T10:24:00.000+03:002008-10-19T10:24:00.000+03:00You could be onto something there. And the exampl...You could be onto something there. And the examples you give would hold even if the dogs were not really domesticated but just hung around with the human groups they'd become associated with.terrythttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-23029714109791805922008-10-18T11:35:00.000+03:002008-10-18T11:35:00.000+03:00A couple of other major advantages I see for havin...A couple of other major advantages I see for having dogs around are:<BR/><BR/>- as an alarm/ warning systems against predators and other human/ Neanderthal groups approaching,<BR/><BR/>- to guard children<BR/><BR/>I can imagine wandering groups were often short on such personnel. Not every hunting or foraging party or group left behind had the luxury of dedicating a couple of people to stand guard all night, and others ready with weapons.<BR/><BR/>In fact, I would go as far and say that intrusion into Neanderthal-dominated West Asia and Europe would have been, and perhaps was, much easier with dogs around.eurologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-76082630743056017422008-10-18T10:31:00.000+03:002008-10-18T10:31:00.000+03:00I suspect that dog domestication was very gradual ...I suspect that dog domestication was very gradual and, even if we were somehow able to observe the whole process, it would be extremely difficult to define any boundary between domestic and wild. The association probably developed through the hunting of the same species. Humans and dogs would both have an advantage through some co-operation without necessarily having intimate contact with each other. Each would be able to pick up the scraps of the other's successful hunts.terrythttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.com